The Delhi High Court directed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a fresh investigation into the death of a 23-year-old hotel manager that took place in 2017, identifying multiple deficiencies in the earlier probe by the city police. The deceased had been found dead under circumstances initially treated by the authorities as a case of suicide by hanging. The mother of the deceased, however, challenged this finding, contending that the death was suspicious and warranted an independent inquiry. The High Court accepted this plea, noting that the earlier investigations lacked scientific rigour, especially in light of advancements in forensic technology that now allow re-examination of material evidence. The Court observed that the original investigation had not properly seized and analysed critical items — for example, the mobile phone of the young woman with whom the deceased was allegedly in a relationship was not seized promptly, thereby allowing for deletion of potentially important data such as messages and call logs.
The Court noted that investigators had “merely parroted the same version” of suicide without applying any analytical or scientific mind to investigate further. The proceeding had presumed cause of death as asphyxia by hanging but failed to probe motives or establish a credible reason for suicide, especially given absence of any evidence indicating psychological distress or suicidal tendencies on the part of the deceased. The Delhi Police had not offered any explanation for delay or omission in seizing the phone, nor did it account for why deletion of messages or call records was permitted. The Court held that such lapses were inconsistent with proper investigative process in a case of grave importance. It further concluded that the initial investigation was conducted myopically, anchored solely on an assumption of suicide, sidelining all other possibilities — including foul play. The Court underscored that while the cause of death might, at first blush, appear to be hanging, the lack of a reason for suicide and the inadequate police response precluded closure of the case on that basis.
Crucially, the High Court invoked the context of global jurisprudence to support its order — pointing to cases from the United States such as the Joseph James DeAngelo (Golden State Killer) and Gary Ridgway (Green River Killer) which remained unresolved for decades until forensic-technological advancements enabled arrests many years later. The Court reasoned that scientific advances — especially in forensic evidence analysis — have repeatedly demonstrated that cases long considered closed may yet yield to truth when re-examined with modern tools. In this spirit, the Court asserted that it is “never too late to search for truth.” By ordering a renewed probe — now to be conducted by the CBI — the Court signalled that justice and truth-seeking must adapt to technological advances and should not be constrained by time after an initial superficial closure.
Beyond ordering the fresh investigation, the Court also directed that CBI examine whether there were lapses, negligence or misconduct by police officers — not merely reopen the death investigation, but scrutinize the quality and bona fides of the earlier investigation conducted by the police, including the decisions not to seize evidence when it could have been critical. Thus the mandate to CBI is twofold: to re-investigate the death on scientific and evidentiary grounds, and to examine police conduct for possible derelictions.
In conclusion, the High Court’s decision reflects an explicit acknowledgement of the evolving capabilities of forensic science. It emphasises that past conclusions — especially in suspicious deaths — should not be treated as final when foundational investigative deficiencies remain unresolved. The verdict underscores that with advances in forensic technology and a willingness to revisit past investigations, justice may yet be served even in decades-old cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.